closi closing arguments today in the george zimmerman trial. the last 24 hours have been really dramatic. also a big day in politics. from washington, d.c. where the president is meeting with two top democrats to try to reignite momentum on immigration, and house republicans will try again, yet again, to repeal obamacare. also texas, where another big day of protests are expected in the abortion bill. we'll get you caught up on the politics, but first let's talk about the trial of george zimmerman. it is coming up on decision time for zimmerman in sanford, florida. right now judge nelson is meeting with lawyers on the final instructions to theclosin. the judge will rule on whether the jury could consider manslaughter and aggravated assault. yesterday after 12 days of testimony from a combined 56 witnesses on both sides, the

defense rested its case. and there was another testy exchange between the judge and don west after the judge asked zimmerman whether he intended to testify. >> i am asking your client questions. please, mr. west. >> i object to the court inquiring of mr. zimmerman as to his decision about whether or not to testify. >> your objection is overruled. mr. zimmerman, i will give you more time, sir, to discuss this with your attorneys. thank you very much. and what is your decision, sir? >> after consulting with counsel, not to testify, your honor. >> is it your decision to not testify in this case? >> yes, urps. >> also on the final day, lawyers on both sides used a life size mannequin to nonstraight what thnonva demonstrate what they say happened. craig, layout the time table for us and what will happen over the

next couple of days. when could the jury get the case? >> reporter: jury could get the case as early as midday friday. could be afternoon friday. but at 1:00 this afternoon, bernie de la rionda is scheduled to make the closing states for the state. and the defense tomorrow. and after that the state will have an opportunity for rebuttal up to one hour. judge nelson has given the state and defense up to three hours to make their initial closing arguments. right now in court, we should note judge nelson going page by page over the jury instructions each side made some notes, suggested changes if you will. and they're trying to merge those to. at issue of course you indicated earlier at issue is whether the jury will be allowed to consider lesser charges. manslaughter charge, perhaps assault, as well. just a few moments ago, the

first order of business, the defense indicated that it wanted the word defendant replaced with george zimmerman throughout all of the charging documents, throughout all of the jury instructions. and judge nelson agreed and george zimmerman -- word defendant, rather, will be replaced by george zimmerman. so this will take a uncan ehe will couple of hours. >> craig melvin, thank you so much. let's bring in lisa bloom. let's talk about the ruling and how significant it is whether to allow lesser charge. >> hugely significant. the defense is taking the gamble on all or nothing proposition. either murder or an acquittal. the prosecution is saying no, we want space in the middle for a manslaughter or aggravated assault conviction. the jury is not supposed to compromise. they're supposed to find every element of any crime for which they find this defendant guilty, but in reality, every courtroom

lawyer knows they often do compromise. maybe jurors who want murder conviction, jurors who want acquittal, they split the difference on a lesser charge. >> let's talk about the closing arguments. what's the strength of the state's case, what would you emphasize if you were making the argument? >> first of all, if you haven't watched this trial in detail, this is the part to watch. the closing arguments are always the most dramatic part of any trial. and i'm sure especially in this trial where the lawyers on both sides are really compelling speakers. this is the part to watch. the prosecution starting at 1:00 today. for the prosecution, they need to prove that this was an intentional killing with ill will or hatred or spite. well, we know that it was intentional killing. we know he shot and killed trayvon martin and he did that intentionally. so we can put that aside. as for ill will, hatred or spite, they have his words recorded on the police dispatcher call just minutes

before the shooting using profanity that i can't repeat on air here. but calling this man names. trayvon martin a total stranger to him. and george zimmerman had already formed negative impressions of him. you mean to tell me that he grew fonder of trayvon martin during the fight? of course not. and even five months later when he's talking to hannity with his attorney sitting right next to him, he says the killing was god's plan and that he had no regrets. of course there is ill will here. now, only question really for the jury is was it self-defense. and i think the defense will hit hard on the testimony of john good, a disinterested neighbor who says that at the end just before the shot was fired, zimmerman was down on his back, trayvon martin was on top. pounding and grounding him, mma style. that's the testimony. i think the defense will ask the jurors zimmerman had a legal gun. was that not right for him to use it. didn't he have the right to use it in that moment to save his

life. wasn't that a reasonable thing for him to do. and for the defense, zimmerman cooperated with the police from the beginning. he answered every question as if he had nothing to hide. >> let me ask about yesterday because this was a compelling to watch, as well, the life size mannequin. let's take a look for people who missed it. >> if this mannequin were carrying a firearm on their waist, where would the gun be right now in relation to me? >> would be at your left inner thigh. >> right here. how about this? how about somebody resisting the attempt, the two lacerations, could that have come there cement if somebody was resisting me pushing down like this? >> i believe so. >> so if you're a juror and and you are trying to say what makes the most sense, what story seems most plausible to me, did one side score more than another with that demonstration

yesterday? >> i think the defense scored more. first of all, the prosecution basically good the same re-enactment with the dummy that the defense did. and the prosecution should have used that opportunity to give a visual to the jury of their theory of the case. the problem is prosecution has not presented a clear theory of the case to the jury. perhaps that's coming today in closing argument. they have suggested that perhaps both men were standing upright at the time of the shooting. if so, let's stand that dummy up, let's give that visual to the jury. the prosecution did not do that. we've had witnesses who said that george zimmerman was on top during the scuffle. let's put him on top. put the dummy on top and demonstrate that way. prosecution didn't do that. prosecution also allowed the witness to say that the gun would have been at zimmerman's inner left thigh, but zimmerman himself demonstrates that the gun was holstered behind his right hip. >> much more to come. as we said, fascinating closing

arguments begin today. msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom and stick with us, we will have those arguments for you when they begin. lots going on in washington as we mentioned at the top of the program. in just a few minutes, as a matter of fact, president obama and vice president joe biden will sit down with senators john mccain and chuck schumer to talk about immigration. and a big meeting of house republicans yesterday. certainly didn't give off signs that immigration is going anywhere fast. >> the republican party is like an orchestra. it's not a soloist. we have different points of views and all the folks are saying their piece. >> i think there is a consensus that we definitely need to to do something. their stories are compel. >> you kbts separacan't separat act kids with those who came across the border. >> unless there is border security first, there will nobody bill. >> it's a broken system. we realize the optics of this. >> joining me now, democrat from

texas. his district covers the largest portion of the border with mexico. good to see you, congressman. >> thank you for having me. >> we know john boehner won't let house members take up the senate bill, but at the same time, he's been warping them of the dangers of inaction. so i guess the question is, is the house going to do anything at all? what are you hearing? >> i'm hearing that there is clearly debate on the republican side. if they're an orchestra, they're not playing together very well. but i do think something will happen. there is frankly as a result of last year's elections, there is too much pressure on the party in the long term to do something that reaches out to the latino community. so i fully expect that at the end of the day, there will be an immigration bill. i think congressman ryan is working very hard to make sure that we can all come to some reasonable accommodation before the end of the year. >> the issue that we keep hearing republicans bringing up

is the border. tim huelskamp said trusting barack obama with border security is like trusting my daughter with bill clinton. we don't trust him. and he tweeted the same thing. is this about a trust deficit, not really about the border? what's going on here as you see it? >> part of the challenge in washington is that -- and it's not about policy. many times it's about politics and it gets personal. and frankly as a new member of congress, that's always very disappoint to go m poinpointing. el paso has been named as the safest city on the border. there is a way of life along the border that involves exchange and commerce that has been tremendously impacted other the last few years where you would be able to go across and eat lunch or people from mexico couldvther the last few years where you would be able to go across and eat lunch or people from mexico coulderther the last few years where you would be able to go across and eat lunch or people from mexico couldher the last few years where you would be able to go across and eat lunch or people from mexico coulder the last few years where you would

be able to go across and eat lunch or people from mexico couldr the last few years where you would be able to go across and eat lunch or people from mexico could the last few years where you would be able to go across and eat lunch or people from mexico could come to the u.s. and shop during their lunch hour. and now that's impossible. so those of us on the border would really like to move forward with immigration reform and secure the border with customs so that we can have our way of life back and so that our economy won't take the hit that it's taken. >> so you think this can get down? how does it get done? i know you met with the president yesterday. should he get more involved or would that make things worse with house republicans? >> as i indicated, part of the challenge is that it's gotten very personal. and frankly what needs to happen is people needs to understand it doesn't matter what state you live in, you're impacted by this because the trade and commerce with mexico is important to your state wherever you are. there they a they're our number one trading partner. and i hope over time the business community, the faith community, agriculture community, it's the only time that i know of that everyone has been singing from the same hymn book with respect to an issue

like this. and i hope they're able to convince more of the members of congress that this is an issue that has to be taken up and dealt with now. >> congressman, good to see you. thank you so much. >> thank you. breaking news from the trial. the judge just rule order whether the jury can consider manslaughter. so let's go back to craig melvin. what did she say? >> reporter: judge nelson rather quickly here has decided to allow the jury to consider that manslaughter charge. again, the arguments didn't take long. she heard some case law from both sides. and has decided again to allow the jury to consider manslaughter charges. we should also note that the manslaughter charges will be considered aggravated assault not going to be considered. the state has decided to abandon the aggravated assault charge. right now the state is trying to persuade the judge to also consider allowing the jury to consider a felony third-degree

murder charge. attorney arguing right now that the judge allow the jury to consider third degree felony murder, as well. >> so a lot happening there in advance of those closing arguments. thank you so much, craig. we'll be right back with the latest on what's happening there as well as in texas with the abortion battle. they're talking about it in austin right now. from walmart and secretly served it up in the heart of peach country. it's a fresh-over. we want you to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy. it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart? wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion.

staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly

are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.

some critical arguments being made at the trial of george zimmerman in advance of the closing arguments today. let's listen. >> that is the reason for the

defini definition of physical injury being provided. as the child abuse instruction requires is mandatory to define the type of physical injury purchase suppopr student to cha 39. next case is sheridan which is 799223, second district court. 2001. here again, third-degree murder premised upon being a lesser included offense. in that case it was a first degree first charge and underlying offense committed by sheridan was a nonenumerated felony. at the time aggravated felony. the defense counsel argued third-degree murder instruction was proper. court goes on to say that the

trim judge's first inclination correct. if in that case it results in death -- >> i want to go back quickly to lisa bloom. as i understand, lisa, the state is arguing third degree felony murder applies because of the underlying crime of child abuse which is twined as a physical or mental injury of the child. tell us what this would mean to the case. >> this is really technical legal stuff, but it's important because the charges that the jury gets will determine what they have to convict george zimmerman with if anything. the state wants to give them a lot of options. felony murder is the taking of a human life when you didn't intend to kill somebody but you only intended to commit a murder. and a child in the law is anybody under the age of 18. so trayvon martin was clearly a child. so the idea behind this charge is that george zimmerman perhaps did not intend to kill trayvon

martin, he intended to harm him, to jury him, that would be child abuse and in the court of that felony, the killing occurred and therefore it's felony murder. >> the more options they have, the better chance they obviously feel of a conviction. let's go back inside the courtroom and listen to these arguments. >> -- which is from june 2th of this year from the fifth district court of appeal. once again, this is a case where the victim in this case was a child. the child was killed in a homicide fashion. and in this case the verdict form included a finding or possible finding for murder in the third degree. and this case of course the problem was that the court conflated and the state proposed and asked for a conflation of the abuse and neglect language. the state is not requesting that here. we're requesting abuse only. but the court went on to say and

i'm reading from page three as used in florida states, definition of child abuse is intentional infliction of physical or mental injury that could reasonably expect to result in injury or active encouragement of another person. there is no factual support for that third one so it has been omitted. right hand column, we continue. the court quotes another case which i will get to in a moment, but quoting state versus sigler, they indicate conviction requires underlying felony and jury determination of existence of such felony. that is why the state has proposed and we think it's required to define the elements of child abuse and also to indicate that the state's burden is to prove the underlying

felony beyond a reasonable doubt. which is exactly the way the instruction reads. the next case is alfieri. which is fourth district court of appeal case from 1998. and that stands for again simply the proposition third degree felony murder, state must prove the underlying felony beyond a reasonable doubt. don't have to necessarily charge it. although i would submit that the information contains the requisite requirements. but we do have to establish it. so that is the reason the instruction language is given. finally it fayson versus state, which is 6 # 4. 1996 decision from the first district court of appeal.t fays which is 6 # 4. 1996 decision from the first district court of appeal.fayson which is 6 # 4. 1996 decision from the first district court of appeal. reading from page two.

the facts in that case they describe similarity to another case gonzalez, argue the convictions of the lesser included offense of third-degree murder felony murder were inconsistent. the court said, no, bottom of the last full paragraph, jury's verdict doesn't mean the aggravated battery conviction had to be reversed. so the reason that i put this in here, judge, is to show that i anticipate an argument that the defense would argue is this a legally inconsistent possibility and i put that in there to say that, no, there is nothing legally inconsistent about it. even if there were, the correct way to phrase it might be a logical inconsistency and that's perfectly permissible and should

be charged that way. so the state's position is that when one commits a nonenumerated felony -- >> so prosecutors argue for including third degree felony murder in the charges that are given to the jury. we'll take a quick break and be back with more of the george zimmerman trial after this. oh, he's a fighter alright. since aflac is helping with his expenses while he can't work, he can focus on his recovery. he doesn't have to worry so much about his mortgage, groceries, or even gas bills. kick! kick...

feel it! feel it! feel it! nice work! ♪ you got it! you got it! yes! aflac's gonna help take care of his expenses. and us...we're gonna get him back in fighting shape. ♪ [ male announcer ] see what's happening behind the scenes at aflac.com. a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective

to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures.

before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. let's get you up to speed in the george zimmerman trial. first of all, the judge has said, yes to a manslaughter charge, no to aggravated assault which was then withdrawn by the prosecution who then came back with something different than they had said yesterday and said, well, what about third degree felony murder. lisa, the assault charge probably never made sense in this case. >> it didn't because clearly there was a homicide here. the homicide being george

zimmerman taking the gun, pointing it at trayvon martin, pulling the trigger, causing the death of trayvon martin. that's not disputed in this case. so an assault is something up to but just before a killing. this is not an assault case. >> we'll take a break again and come back with more after this. [ karen ] did you lock the front door? [ john ] nope. [ tires squeal ] twelve bucks a night! no. they have waterbeds. ew. no! are we near a gas station? [ phone beeps] [ phone ] no. is that from the mini bar? [ both ] no. is that a cop? no. [ cop ] do you know how fast you were going? no. eighty-seven [ groans ] he's right. is that oscar mayer? [ karen] yes! [ male announcer ] in a world filled with "no", it's nice to finally say "yes". oscar mayer selects deli meat, no artificial preservatives and gluten free. it's yes food. it's oscar mayer.

it's yes food. - hugs from beneful baked delights... - [ barks ]rs ] are crispy, oven-baked dog snacks with soft savory centers, made with beef and cheese. beneful baked delights: a unique collection of four snacks... to help spark play in your day.

[ male announcer ] you wait all year for summer. ♪ this summer was definitely worth the wait. ♪ summer's best event from cadillac.

let summer try and pass you by. lease this cadillac srx for around $369 per month or purchase for 0% apr for 60 months. come in now for the best offers of the model year. defense attorney don west said it's outrageous that at the last minute the prosecution would ask for a third degree felony murder charge. let's listen in. >> -- just to spring it on everyone at the last minute. he has a fully formed organized argument based on all this case law that i guarantee you he didn't come up with between yesterday when they wanted aggravated assault and this morning when they want third-degree murder based on child abuse. really?

sitting right there approving of this. >> that's not proper argument. >> it's not fair to me, mr. zimmerman or from o'mara or the court for this to happen like this right now. i need time to sort this out if the court is going to give any consideration to this remarkable, remarkable suggestion by the state that somehow third-degree murder based upon an 827, chapter 827, chapter 39 violation of the child abuse statutes could somehow when trayvon martin is shot straddling george zimmerman, pummeling him, that somehow george zimmerman was engaged in child abuse?

>> the supreme court's jury instructions that are online and in the rules of criminal procedure books indicates that the offense charge of second-degree murder, a category one, is manslaughter. the category two is third degree felony murder. vehicular homicide, nonwhom side letterses would be attempt, negligence, aggravated battery, battery and assault. these are part of the jury instructions that have been known to this court since i've been on the bench. i'm not finished speaking. >> i apologize. >> thank you. the possibility of a category two is known to counsel at the beginning of trial. >> your honor, in the same way we would expect vehicular

homicide be offered. >> but the evidence doesn't support that and the state's argument is at first yesterday when they provided the court with the possible lessers and one of them was aggravated assault, i didn't have any information available to me that led me to believe that that would be a charge that would be given because the facts did not support an aggravated assault lesser included offense. their argument today is that the facts support a third degree felony murder with the underlying enumerated felony being child abuse. that is permissible under the statute. if you need -- i'm not going to give you hours. you have i don't know how many lawyers working with you on the case. you have four in the courtroom and i know there's a room downstairs full of people who --

>> this is who we have as lawyers on this case. everyone else is a volunteer, an intern, who has really done remarkable work, but we can't rely on non-lawyers to do the kind of work that is necessary right now. judge, this was a trick. doesn't the court realize this was a trick by the state. >> my intention right now is to get through the rest of the jury instructions because if we have any arguments about the others, i would like to get them resolved. we will come back to this one. i understand your argument. we will come back to this one. >> the state also proposed the court instruct to the justifiable and excusable homicide just as we do or second degree murder with respect to the third-degree murder and manslaughter. so that has also been included. the next i guess area of

discussion moves to the just guyable use of deadly information instruction. >> okay. i'm there. that was fascinating to me. i don't think you need to know the law to understand the argument that don west was making. but i'm not so sure that the judge was buying it. she says, look, if you know the law, it's all right in there. >> wow. and dramatic moment during arguments about jury instructions. which is usually a relatively dry part of the proceedings. so the state wants to give the jury the opportunity to come wrak with a conviction of felony murder based on child abuse. and i have to say, legally speaking, that makes a lot of accepts. and apparently the state came in today with all the case law to support it. and don west for the defense says we should have been told about this earlier. we don't have the opportunity of right now to go through all of those cases and to respond. this is a big issue. and the judge interestingly said you have a room full of people downstairs helping you. and he says those are just

interns and law clerks. there is only three lawyers. the woman sitting next to him, don west and of course mark o'mara preparing his closing argument. we need time to respond. so the judge will come back to that. but that's a very significant issue. >> and if she decides that given the stakes here, maybe we need to give him time, the history of this judge would suggest to me she's not going to give him the rest of the day. >> right. >> she's been pretty strict with keeping things on schedule. >> here is the tension that judge nelson has to take into account. on the one hand, she has a sequestered jury, she has to move this case along. on the other hand, she has to afford the defendant all of his constitutional rights. and if she doesn't and he's convicted, there will be an appealable issue and the whole case could have to be retried if the conviction is vreversed on

appeal. >> here it is, don west, just a few minutes ago. >> somewhere we wondered why the state would put this vague allegation in the information that trayvon martin was 17. no onner charge of child abuse, no evidence of anything other than this statement that trayvon martin was a minor 17 years old. first of all, i move to strike it as surplusage because it's not related to any element of the offense for which george zimmerman is charged. nor related to any conceivable lesser included offense. so i guess what's happened now since the time that the state filed its information in april, that they have been lying in wait, collecting all this loosely connect child abuse case

law, where 2-year-olds have been shot by someone who is reckless with a gun or some child exposed to horrible deprivation or abuse resulting in death, just so at this moment on the day of closing arguments we would have to deal with it. i can say it's certainly consistent with the way this case has proceeded since april. but it's certainly just as disingenuous as well. this is out ranrageous that the state would seek that do that at this time. >> let's talk about it being outrageous in every murder case when it comes to this point and discussions are had about what should be included in the charge. is this outrageous in your minute i don'yon opinion? >> that's a tough call. don west has been arguing for some time that the prosecution highways been playing hide the

ball, has been violating george zimmerman's koconstitutional rights. the june has not rule order some of those issues which are still outstanding regarding discovery violations. so i'm not prepared to rule on them. i will say that it is certainly a reasonable argument for the defense that they are entitled to notice of any significant legal or factual issues that the prosecution will argue. and i don't think there is anything improper with putting in the information that trayvon martin was 17. he may be going too far to say they put it in in april of last year, they have been lying in wait and now they spring it on us. that's probably going too far. but i would probably give the defense a reasonable amount of time to respond. >> so much more than we expected right now as we're leading up to the closing arguments.

would we'll go back into the courtroom after this. with o ur " name your price" tool, people pick a price and we help them find a policy that works for them. huh? also... we've been working on something very special. [ minions gasp, chuckle ] ohhh! ohhh! one day the world... no, the universe will have the pricing power they deserve. mouhahaha! mouhahaha! mouhahaha! ooh-hee-hee-hee! blaaaah! we'll work on it. wah-hah-hah! stopping at nothing to help you save. when you do what i do, iyou think about risk.. i don't like the ups and downs of the market, but i can't just sit on my cash. i want to be prepared for the long haul. ishares minimum volatility etfs. investments designed for a smoother ride. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs.

ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. all this produce from walmart and secretly served it up in the heart of peach country. it's a fresh-over. we want you to eat some peaches and tell us what you think. they're really juicy. it must have just come from the farm. this right here is ideal for me. walmart works directly with growers to get you the best quality produce they've ever had. what would you do if i told you all this produce is from walmart? wow! is it really? (laughter) find fresh peaches and all your quality produce. backed by our 100% money back guarantee. walmart. in miami, coca-cola is coming together with latino leaders to support hispanicize, and the adelante movement. teaching tools for success, and fostering creativity. these programs are empowering people to lead positive change, and helping them discover how great a little balance can feel.

through initiatives like these, our goal is to inspire more than three million people to rediscover the joy of being active this summer. see the difference all of us can make, together. what are you guys doing? having some fiber! with new phillips' fiber good gummies. they're fruity delicious! just two gummies have 4 grams of fiber! to help support regularity! i want some... [ woman ] hop on over! [ marge ] fiber the fun way, from phillips'. [ herbie ] eh, hold on brent, what's this? mmmm, nice car. there's no doubt, that's definitely gonna throw him off. she's seen it too. oh this could be trouble. [ sentra lock noise ] oh man. gotta think fast, herbie. back pedal, back pedal. [ crowd cheering ] oh, he's down in flames and now the ice-cold shoulder. one last play... no, game over! gps take him to the dog house. [ male announcer ] make a powerful first impression. the all-new nissan sentra. ♪

let's head back to the courtroom for what have been some pretty heated arguments about what exactly the charges the jury will be able to consider are against george zimmerman. let's listen. >> that's just guyable use of deadly force. >> no, we disagree. >> then give me case law that says that that's a wrong interpretation. >> standard instructions, i have the proposed ones, as well. the court is looking at the wrong part of the instruction. give if applicable under 776 a person is justified in using federally force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to

himself. that's one. or the imminent commission of felony battery -- i'm sorry, the applicable or forcible felony. in this instance the state claimsing a gra it vad. or the imminent commission offing a gra it vad battery against himself. it's an alternative. it's not required. and we're not asking for it. we're saying george zimmerman was resisting great bodily harm. as this reads and the octobld o did, too. >> these give a lot of alternatives. the very first one says to read in all cases. and then there after, it says give a or b as applicable.

>> yes. >> also there are some instructions to give only if there is evidence of what is seeking to be defined. >> the court just read it correctly that it requires, one, justified in the use of deadly force doesn't have the duty to retreat if, one -- >> that's not 776.012. i'm looking at the instruction. >> but what i'm saying the ininstruction refers you to the statute and i'm reading the statute. the statute says person is justified this using force

september deadly force against another when such conduct is necessary to defend himself or her self. however, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if, one, reasonably believes it's necessary to prevent injury or deadly harm or under another set of circumstances. >> they're or. alternative. >> yes. and that is the 012 instruction. the justifiable homicide instruction is what i have written here, which is the 782.02, which i have yet to hear why that is not applicable. justifiable use of force is required to be given and certainly applicatibleapplicabl. i don't dispute necessarily that 776.012 might also be applicable.

in fact i include it later. but what he's asserting is it's the only thing that is application and that's where he and i part company. >> okay. that's an issue. what about the rest of the instruction? >> the rest of the instruction, beginning with the line however the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find the defense has inserted the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt -- >> you're going too fast. >> sorry. the use of deadly force is not -- defense has inserted the phrase if you find beyond a reasonable doubt. i assume it's simply to restate what is said the very last paragraph on the next page. convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. it is simply a second place to say it and if they want it there, we'll put it there, too. >> so that's not an argument. >> there is a larger issue here,

though. >> they're not arguing with it being in there, so we don't need to go there. >> i included this language as a mirror of -- >> they're not objecting. >> but i am in the sense -- >> you don't want it included in what you put in yours? >> no, i put beyond a reasonable doubt in there and the state agrees. so we're past that. i included this whole section which is based upon mr. zimmerman initially provoking the use of force against him. >> i don't think they have an objection to the section. >> no, i do. >> then why did you put it in your instruction? >> for discussion. because it only becomes relevant if indeed there is substantial evidence to establish that mr. zimmerman provoked the use of force against him as defined by law. and i think the state should be required to articulate the facts in this case upon which it would

claim and argue that mr. zimmerman provoked the use of force against him. and if they can't do that, they shouldn't be able to argue it and the jury sdwdoesn't need to deal with it. so it can be a misleading instruction unless the state can articulate that there is some construction of these facts that could establish beyond a reasonable doubt by this jury that george zimmerman provoked the use of force against himself under the prevailing case law that define what is provoked legally means. >> respond? >> certainly. prosecution and defense arguing over what the jury should be told about how to approach their deliberations on the guilt or innocence of george zimmerman. we'll take a break and be back. to make their money do more. (ann) to help me plan my next move, i take scottrade's free, in-branch seminars... plus, their live webinars.

i use daily market commentary to improve my strategy. and my local scottrade office guides my learning every step of the way. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade... ranked "highest in customer loyalty for brokerage and investment companies."

doesn't the court realize

this was a trick? >> my intention right now is to get through the rest of the jury instructions because if we have any arguments about the other, i would like to get them lresolve. >> unusually heated arguments as they're trying to decide on the instructions to jury. let go back in live. >> other than this sense that she sensed movement or shadows or something. so let's assume even -- we can't assume that's true because it makes no sense compared with the other evidence in the case. that the evidence would support provoking? jam jane could not have seen what she claims to have seen. i it's physically impossible. that's been established by

medical testimony, by ballistics testimony. she said at the time the shot was fired, she was looking out the window and immediately after the shot, she saw george zimmerman stand up and trayvon martin lying face down. we know that just couldn't have happened, that she's wrong. whatever she thinks she saw, she got it wrong no matter how well intended she is, she got it wrong. because trayvon martin undeniably was shot in the front, not in the back. that's not evidence worthy of any consideration by anybody on what happened at the time of the shot. she at any tididn't see the conn initially. she didn't see george zimmerman be struck in the nose by trayvon martin or anything else connected with that. she heard some voices and she made gross inaccurate assumptions based upon hearing those voices, but she saw nothing by her own testimony

that would establish george zimmerman provoked the contact between him and trayvon martin. and let's not forget, judge, that when trayvon martin was known to have been rining away from george zimmerman, george zimmerman was still in his car. ms. jeantel corroborated that at the time of the second to last call disconnected is when she told trayvon martin to run and he did. because the next time she talked with him, he told her that he had lost the man. the reconnect time was about 20 seconds. and then they stayed on the phone for the next 3 or 3 1/2 minutes. in the meantime, george zimmerman is on the phone for a good bit of that time with the police. so what we know from that in and of itself is that trayvon martin

had two or three minutes to get home, to get home 348 feet. he had 2 or 3 or maybe 4 minutes to do that and chose not to. he decided either to go home and come back or that he decided to hang around and wait for george zimmerman to get off the phone so he could confront george zimmerman and ask him whatever he said, why are you following me or, man, what's your problem, whatever that was he said, he's the one that initiated it. that's clear from ms. jen jeantel and frankly any other evidence. we know that happened from the physical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence which is just as good as direct evidence. so that's established clearly. there was no pursuit. you heard the call. mr. zimmerman says when he was told we don't need you do that,

okay. and he was on the phone for another, what, minute or so. we know where the event took place. it started at the t. george zimmerman's key with the flashlight was found right there, the one he had on n. his hand on the way back to the car thinking that the police were going to arrive any minute. it is outrageous to suggest that there is sufficient evidence to offer to this jury that george zimmerman provoked this incident because what the law requires in order to have provoked this incident is proof that there was the use of force, the actual use of force, or the threatened use of force. walking up to somebody, following somebody is not enough to get you to the legal definition of provoke. that's the gibbs case. it's clear where the court committed reversible error by not saying that, if you will, in its instructions.

there is no legal issue as that's what proce that's what provoked means. and for him to say that george zimmerman followed trayvon martin is a legally supportable basis to claim that he provoked the violence is legally incorrect. he know that's knows better than that. to try to convince the court. so i have the gibbs case law. the court knows how that works. and the state has not offered a compelling argument supported with facts or the law why the court should introduce this issue to the jury to make them even consider that george zimmerman may have provoked this. >> gibbs of course is a justifiable use of nondeadly force case. but the only language that the gibbs case should be included rather than the full paragraph is force or threat of force

under the facts of that case. before i get there, let me point out the entire thing i just heard is we don't think that the witness was credible or we gont think that the jury should draw a certain inference. but mr. west hasn't said yet that those aren't facts in a aren't before the jury and that the inference is not permissible. i understand he doesn't think they're the right ones, but that's not a reason not to give an instruction. the instruction is what are facts before the jury and what are at least some reasonable enfe inferences to draw. when a person admits to following an individual and when a person says let go, get off, and is in fear of this other person who is it following, w4e7b there is evidence physically of a physical struggle between them, there is evidence that the defendant is the provoker especially when he admits that he was pursuing both

wheel and on foot. so we had hashed that out, i thought. i understand mr. west didn't think any of it is credible or right. respectfully, that's up to the jury, not mr. west. so the issue is i think the provocation language should be included. the only issue that i hear is whether or not it also ought to on top of the issue of provocation include the phrase force or threat of force. and again, carrying a firearm or grabbing or accosting to the point that someone hears let go and a physical struggle, that is evidence of force or threat of force. it doesn't say -- gibbs certainly doesn't say deadly force because of course gibbs is itself a nondeadly force case in the first instance. so